About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21
that it's a hard job every day of the week. >> defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs of staff's general martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee on the defense department 2014 budget request. the pentagon budget request includes almost $527 billion in discretionary spending nearly 1% decrease from 2013. this is three hours and 45 minutes. >> good morning everybody. chuck hagel, general martin dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, accompanied by the department's comptroller undersecretary bob hailed for her hearing on department of defense fiscal year 2014 budget request and the posture of the u.s. armed forces we welcome secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before this committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers sailors airmen and marines at home and in harm's way. we could never say that enough. your testimony today is a key component of the committees review of the fy2014 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.6 billion
additional missile defense systems were needed to be deployed for the protection of the united states, whether domestically or abroad, would the russian government be consulted or informed before that decision was made? >> well, first, i can't answer for the president. that would be a decision for the president to make. i suspect have to reinvolve around treaty obligations, and we have before with other issues might be. >> in mah, the government requested meetings to take ac regularly to discuss the european missile shield. any talks to take play, and if there are plans for such talks, do they include any nato allies as part of the discussions? >> again, senator, i don't know about those talks that would be in purview of the secretary of state in the white house. i have not been consulted on any talks or possibility of what you're talking about. >> okay. you're not certain of whether there have been talks, but to your knowledge, there have not? n't know of any conversations of what you suggested on talks. >> i see time expired, thank you very much, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> than
in this race and our thoughts are with all of them today. the department of defense is prepared to respond quickly to any response for additional support from domestic law enforcement agencies. i will continue to consult closely with d.o.d. senior leaders on how we can best support the government's response and investigation. and chairman dempsey may have additional comments regarding this event as well. mr. chairman, i will now turn to my opening statement for this hearing. this year's 2014 budget request for the department of defense is -- as congressman lowey noted, a budget that was put together over many months. an enterprise as large as the department of defense, $600 billion is not collaborated with or on or numbers or budgets instructed in a manner of two or three months. and as we proceed in this hearing this morning, mr. chairman, we will get into some of the specifics of the budget and why some of the decisions were made on the basis of what the numbers will reveal and our responsibilities. allow me to express my appreciation to this subcommittee for its continued support of our
of missil defense approach that i just identified one as the amount and the phased adaptive approach and alaska both pieces do you approve both parts? >> i do. >> on the brac issue, as i understanding your testimony and your budget, mr. secretary, there is a short-term cost that there was an additional brac improvements, but that cost is not in the 2014 budget request. you put it in the 2015 budgeta >> the money is in 2016, it is $2.4 million of additional funds. previous rounds you testified saved, i believe, $12 billion annually. was that the savings that you say exist from the created from the last ground? from all the previous rounds. if you would like more detail maybe you could bring it out. i think you on the 75th barack you might remember you were in the the senate at the time in 2005. you might remember that i kind of lead the opposition of that round unsuccessfully. my senior senator was on the other side. yorm how you voted on that. we'll get in to that. >> by support. >> okay. okay. >> yeah i came with the first it was bringing down our infrastructure to an artificially l
of defense, we talk about the post office and prepayments being made. there is one truism on both, o s the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. yes. so it is not an issue is this just a quasi-government organization, both dod and you need prepayments. we're ultimately on the hook the taxpayer is. what concerns me in a time, admitted, mr. chairman your low liquidity. you're not really sure you can get down as low as two days later this year, at a time in which the discussions have been made and i have read about the board of governors and your role. you do believe you have a fiduciary duty in your role to the postal service and in your role, correct? >> mr. chairman, representative, yes. >> that means there's a trust. there's a trust with you and the board of governors not just strictly you but i believe with the postmaster general and others in this situation. what i keep hearing is, well we thought of and we're looking at that. we have a five-year plan that was many years ago. we have discussions that we want to do. we're exploring ideas. these are direct quotes from today, exploring h
of the defense intelligence agency spa capano current thfureat to the national securi. along with the national security agency, the national geospatial intelligence agency and the national reconnaissanceoffice and thinteencen etservices erts of the department of de that are also elements of the intelligence communy thatth direct clapper hits. director clapper while much of the information that you provide to policy makers in putting members of congress cannot be shared with the public because of its sensitivity and classification. the people who elected us to serve deserve the best information that we can publicly provide them. so we are glad that you and the general are with us this morning to do just that. among the challenges that we face is a self-inflicted wound, one with the fact that director clapper has rightly said amplify the other threats that we come from around the world that challenges the and prioritized cuts required by sequestration. this committee is interested in hearing from both of you today about the impact of the fy 2013 sequestration and the impact it's having on the in
of defense is currently spending $10 billion more conducting the war effort in afghanistan this year than was estimated would be necessary. from what we understand, in order to make up for this estimation the department of defense will have to pull from other funds from its base budget, which is difficult because of sequestration and the other long-term spending limits imposed by the budget control act of 2011. the problems with trying to budget and plan for a war a year in advance and how unforeseen costs can arise. at the same time a $10 billion is copulation is a little alarming. -- miss calculation is a little bit alarming. general, can you explain to us how that underestimation occurred? that we insidere u.s. forces in afghanistan under estimated $10 billion for our requirements for this year. i can assure you we have gone back and look at every dollar we have spent to make sure we have spent to good effect. we have significantly reduced the money we are spending in afghanistan. i will go back and take a look at where the projection came from and why we are in the position we are in
areas. one, financial planning going forward at the departments and number two, missile defense and our ability to defend the homeland. i want to start that much discussion about sequestration that the current budget and the department will hope fully in the month of may comply with the scots that present short-term challenges of long-term challenges. in addition, they contemplate a renew commission process going forward. i would suggest of assessing sequestration in the short-term and long-term and cannot brac process that a component should conclude consideration to the degree with which we can reduce the prance overseas, reduce bases overseas command manpower overseas, consistent with essential imperative for national security. the first question i wanted to ask secretary hagel as to what extent is the department complying with these financial pressure is our ability to drive down overseas footprints. referable to reduce overseas and here at home if it can be done consistently national security and to what extent is it apart and engaged right now in that assessment and analysis? >> t
that we have provided by the department of defense. if that changes, we will have to look and see if we can accommodate that change, and if not, then we will have to say we have a requirement for resources. >> thank you very much, and i look forward to sitting down with you to look at the matrix that brought about such a change in three months, and let me just say, mr. secretary, i was not addressing the increased number of claims coming in the door, i was addressing the number of claims that are actually processed and determined, and that does not seem to be getting better. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will try to ask two questions in too short a period of time. it's homelessness on the one hand, suicides on the other. how do you pick the tragedy, the worst tragedy? let me22 suicides a day. just concentrate on that for a second. you are making an enormous move in mental health, bringing in the experts and the support staff. it will take time to get that into the system and trained, too. how do you look at the general population, starting with ptsd, and as it gets into th
of the defense budget. this program is singular in terms of its costs and the way it has been structured. attribute maytive not be all the radars and sensors and missiles and stealth technology and supersonic speeds. it may well be the way it has been designed to avoid budget cutters in washington. on c-e sunday at 8:00 span's "q&a." >> in a few moments, the commander of u.s. and international forces in afghanistan testifies on capitol hill. in about two and a half hours, a news conference on the investigation of the treatment of detained suspected terrorists. after that, a hearing on the federal -- the president house budget request. filmmaker ken burns his latest project. the commander of u.s. and international forces in afghanistan says he needs to see how afghan forces perform before making any recommendations on the future of foreign troop levels. and general joseph dunn furred was before the committee -- dunford was before the committee for two and half hours. -- two and a half hours. >> all set? good morning, everybody. before we begin, i want to take a moment to reflect on the tr
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
defense ministers have already begun consideration of the size and mission for a post-2014 force in afghanistan. one factor that will influence that decision is the size and capacity of the afghan security forces. in this regard, the recent decision by nato defense ministers to support maintaining the afghan security forces at the current 352,000 through 2018, rather than reducing the support to a level of 230,000, as previously planned, is the right thing to do. it sends an important signal of our continued commitment to a safe and secure afghanistan and make it feasible for us to have a smaller u.s. and coalition presence after 2014. the greatest challenge to afghanistan's security is not the taliban, but the pakistan- based sanctuaries for militant extremists, launching cross border attacks into afghanistan. pakistan has said it supports a stable and secure afghanistan. but its actions belie its words. the u.s.-pakistan relationship will not be normalized so long as those extremists safe havens exist on pakistani territory. another large challenge to a stable afghanistan is th
't allow. and i'm not blaming the lawyer. my goodness, if i were his defense lawyer, you wouldn't ask him one thing without my permission and you would have to give a lot to get an answer to anything. all i'm suggesting is that we're at war, these two people fit the profile of folks who are trying to kill us, they're tied to overseas organizations potentially. why in the world can't our country have some time with this person in the national security legal system to find out about what he knows and how they planned this attack to make the rest of us safer? i believe in due process. and he in that system can go to a judge and say, i'm not an enemy combat expent the government would have to -- combatant and the government would have to prove you are. so he has due process there. but here's what i believe deeply, and then i'll turn it over to senator eye i can't telw hampshire. i believe the closer to get to your homeland, the more rights we have as a people to defend ourselves. i don't want a police state. i don't want to live in ath a country where you can't express who you are and what yo
military coalition group and so one year at least in my opinion as secretary of defense it's not clear enough to make any conclusions, inclusive adjustments to a policy recommendation on this is, mr. president, this is exactly what we should do. >> i had used two terms as i think are important, coherent and inclusive, because as i think as general dempsey suggested, should there be an immediate collapse of the assad government, there is the potential for civil strife unless the opposition is not only coherent but it embraces the three major traditions in the country, shia, sunni, four, christian and critic another context, we didn't have, and libya and again i will stand to be corrected, there was tribal rivalry but there wasn't quite such a traditional distinction of cleavage, sectarian cleavage in other areas also. and that is a very elusive objective. i thank you very much. >> if i could just add, do you mind? it's important to mention i think, you will hear some folks say we have to act now or we risk this become a sectarian conflict. i just want you to give my view of this. it is
of defense. we built a strengthened homeland security enterprise and a more secure america, better to face the challenges we face. the president'sle budget allows us to build on the progress by preserving core front line operations priorities. at the same time, given the current fiscal environment, this is the third straight year that our budget requests reflects a deduction from the previous year. our request is $800 million below the f.y. 2013 enacted budget. our mission has nod changed and we continue to face evolving threats. we've become more strategic how we use these resources. this is coupled with a unprecedented with a fiscal discipline that has led to $4 billion in cost reductions over the past four years in a process we call efficiency review. before i get to the nuts and bolts of the budget i want to talk about sequestration. >> excuse me. can i ask you to pause a little bit longer. if you could pause for a moment dub. we want to get this quarum ieve we have a .nd if i can find -- here we go i would like to take this opportunity to conduct a brief business meeting -- to consi
approved actions for cia and defense personnel based upon legal guidance that has since been repudiated. the most important decision may have been to declare the geneva convention did not apply to al qaeda and taliban captives in afghanistan or guantÁnamo. the administration never specified what rules would app apply. the task force believes that u.s. defense intelligence professionals and servicemembers in harm's way need absolutely clear orders on the treatment of detainees, requiring at a minimum compliance with common article iii of the geneva convention. this was not done. civilian leaders and military commanders have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that their subordinates comply with laws of war. president obama has committed to observe the geneva convention through an executive order, but a future president could change it by the stroke of a pin. congress, one of our recommendations, needs to work with the administration to strengthen torture statute, the war crimes act and uniform criminal to justice to remove the loopholes that allow torture to occur. in terms of the c
the border, that is the last line of defense, keeping the threat out of this country. proponent of big border security for a long time. to unveilting ready technology. i was disappointed to see that your budget decreases funding for border technology. question, ir that will ask an additional one. >> it is the force multiplier. track to implement our technology procurement. as you know, what i did last year was stop the investment in having one integrated power plant across the entire border because it was expensive and was not working. more off-the- shelf technology that fits a particular terrain. if we are going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform, we not be able to that. the increase of the budget on i went to afghanistan and we talked about the technologies we much in agreement. excess surplus, they're willing to share with their department. >> the budget includes $43 million which is some dod. some of those air stats are not in the best shape. not a perfect solution, but the point is an important one. to the extent we have already invested in r&d, we can transfer over the bord
first line of defense and we need to step up. we need to be responsible. we need to get this passed. >> if i may, one thing, and that is, when it became possible that we would not have assault weapon ban or we would not have a prohibition on future sales of high-capacity magazines, it made a background check bill even more important for it to be as strong as it could be. because not having successes in terms of reducing the number of guns that are out there. 300 million guns out there already. this background check is really very, very important, and i thank you again, you and the task force, for your leadership on it. you and representative king for your leadership on presenting this bill in the house, and we hope to be able to say by the time we meet again that we have an overwhelmingnmber of come in a bipartisan way, of cosponsors and that the american people have weighein, not only forcosponsorship but for a vote. thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> house speaker john boehner also held his weekly briefing shortly after this one. in which he also addressed monday's boston b
is for the purpose of providing national defense and interstate commerce, but since the state have shuffled off welfare and education and everything else to the federal government, neither one of the governments are doing the job properly. another thing is i am a 21-year veteran. i think we should get out of afghanistan or any other place that we're in now that we're not going to go over there and beat the hell out of them and come on home. i think veterans a lot of times are complaining -- there are cases where they are being mistreated, but there are veterans who are complaining that are probably getting too much help as it is. i think you very much. -- thank you very much. guest: i want to thank you for your service to this country. the role of the better government, i have to agree first and foremost is a national defense. homeland security plays a key role in that. the clear role is to keep people safe and do what we can. i certainly understand the concern about making sure we do what we do it as efficiently and effectively as possible. i do see a public role with regard to the things tha
't help but question whether spending millions more in defense from united states to mexico is really the best use of dollars, but i do know that each one of us can write what we want, and each one of us may have a different bill. you have a bill that's a product of compromise, very difficult concessions by all involvedand i mentioned senator schumer and senator schumer, durbin, graham, and plate, but also, senator feinstein and senator senator menendez, senator rubio, senator bennett, all worked on this. so now we're bringing to the public this immigration hearing. it's the fourth we've had this year. we will hold hearings on monday. we will find time for secretary napolitano to come before the committee and discuss that with senator grassley. and so i hope these will give the public an opportunity to learn about it. certainly, every one of us loves to want to say we -- every one of us will have plenty of time to analyze this bill before we actually start marking it up in may. but just remember, immigration is an ongoing source of renewal of our spirit, our creativity, and also, our
on the future of the republican party. noonis beginning live at eastern on c-span2. >> defense secretary chuck hagel testified before the senate armed services committee wednesday. secretary hagel said there is a $22 billion shortfall this year. general dempsey said the department is not sure how this will impact military readiness. this is three hoursnd 45 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. today, the committee gives a warm welcome to general chuck dempsey,neral accompanied by the department comptroller undersecretary bob hale, for being on the department of defense fiscal year 2014. we welcomet secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before the committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers, sailors, and marines at home and in harm's way, we can never say that enough. your st today is a key component of the committee's review of the two dozen 14 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.60 billion for the base and $88.50 billion for overseas contingency operations , although, as your
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21